Jeffrey K. Markoff v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
447 P.3d 577 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The professional rescuer doctrine bars a professional rescuer's recovery for injuries caused by hazards inherent to the rescue situation, even if the hazard was created by the defendant's prior negligence or exacerbated by the defendant's ongoing negligence after the rescuer's arrival.
Facts:
- In 2004, Pilchuck Contractors, a contractor for Puget Sound Energy (PSE), improperly decommissioned a gas service line but documented it as properly cut and capped.
- On March 9, 2016, a natural gas leak was reported from this line on Greenwood Avenue North in Seattle.
- Nine firefighters, including Jeffrey Markoff, arrived at the scene and identified the leak's source from a coupling on the line.
- The firefighters notified PSE of the leak at 1:11 a.m.
- Unbeknownst to the firefighters, gas had also escaped into and accumulated in an underground space beneath an adjacent building.
- At 1:43 a.m., an unknown source ignited the accumulated gas, causing a massive explosion that injured the firefighters.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Markoff and other injured firefighters sued Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE) and its contractors in a Washington trial court.
- The complaint alleged common law negligence, willfulness, statutory liability, and other tort claims.
- PSE filed a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing all claims were barred by the professional rescuer doctrine.
- The trial court granted PSE's motion, dismissing the common law and statutory claims with prejudice.
- After additional briefing, the trial court also dismissed the firefighters' claim for injunctive relief with prejudice.
- The firefighters, as appellants, appealed the trial court's orders of dismissal to the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division One.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the professional rescuer doctrine bar negligence and statutory claims brought by firefighters against a utility company for injuries sustained in a gas explosion, where the utility allegedly failed to properly decommission the gas line years prior and failed to shut off the gas promptly after being notified of the leak?
Opinions:
Majority - Dwyer, J.
Yes. The professional rescuer doctrine bars the firefighters' claims because the risk of an explosion is an inherent hazard associated with responding to a natural gas leak. The doctrine, based on assumption of risk, precludes recovery when a professional rescuer is injured by a danger that is unique to and generally associated with the particular rescue activity. The firefighters argued that exceptions for 'hidden dangers' or 'intervening negligence' should apply. However, the court found that the prior improper decommissioning and the underground gas accumulation were not new or unknown risks, but part of the single hazard of a gas leak. Furthermore, PSE's failure to promptly shut off the gas was 'ongoing negligence' related to the original hazard, not an independent, intervening act by a third party that would negate the doctrine. The court also declined to create a new exception for willful or reckless conduct, stating that Washington law focuses on the nature of the risk assumed, not the defendant's state of mind in creating it.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad application of the professional rescuer doctrine in Washington, clarifying that it can bar claims even in the face of significant, multi-faceted negligence by a defendant. The court's distinction between 'ongoing negligence' (which does not defeat the doctrine) and 'intervening negligence' by a separate party (which may) sets a high bar for future first responder plaintiffs. By refusing to create an exception for reckless or wanton conduct, the court solidifies the doctrine's focus on the inherent risks of the profession rather than the culpability of the defendant. This case significantly limits the ability of professional rescuers to recover in tort for injuries sustained from hazards that, while exacerbated by negligence, are fundamentally characteristic of the emergency they were called to address.
